Introduction/Background
|
Contractor |
DOE Office |
|
|
Date of last assessment: October 2000
Process Overview
Performance Objective:
#1 Attraction/Retention of Qualified People
SLAC will attract and retain highly qualified people by
having a cost effective total compensation program that is competitive with the
relevant job market.
Performance
Criterion 1.1: Direct Compensation Program. Direct compensation
(salary) programs will reflect the University’s mid-market compensation
philosophy.
Performance measure: Average Salary. Average salary for benchmark positions, excluding bargaining unit positions, as measured by recognized salary surveys conducted annually will be within ± 5% of the aggregate average for jobs at the time of program implementation. No more than 20% of benchmark positions should exceed ± 10% of their individual survey comparators.
Process used to measure
Performance Criterion 1.1: Stanford uses a variety of salary surveys
and specific comparisons in order to analyze market position. Because SLAC
looks at about 88 jobs in multiple job families, the use of specific surveys and
institutional data is tailored for the specific job family. Currently,
data from the following sources is used in evaluating our market position:
General Bay Area:
Salary Information Retrieval Systems (SIRS)
Radford Bay Area/Northern California
Public Sector/ Universities:
City of San Jose
City of Palo Alto
Santa Clara County
San Mateo County
California State University: San Francisco, San Jose
University of Southern California
Ivy Group Survey
Santa Clara University
University of California campuses:
San Francisco, Berkeley, Davis, Los Angeles, and.
Santa Cruz
University of San Francisco
Stanford Hospital
Technical Market:
American Electronic Association (AEA)
Radford Select Companies
Foushee (for Environment, Safety, and Health) (ES&H)
Salary Information Retrieval Systems (SIRS): Select Companies
California High Tech Benchmark Survey
We are reporting the market data that were used for the 2001-2002 Fiscal Year salary program. The data were collected in Fall, 2000. The market data are examined individually and then are combined into an overall market number by simple averaging.
Performance Criterion 1.2: Indirect
Compensation. Indirect compensation (benefit) program will be consistent
with local practices and provide for the well being of SLAC employees.
Performance
Measure: Benefit Program. The benefit program (to include
programs such as: retirement, medical, and dental, vacation, sick and
other paid leave, life insurance, accidental death and dismemberment, workers’
compensation, social security, unemployment, short and long term disability,
holidays, and tuition grant) as measured by agreed to survey will be within ±
7.5% of the local average when the above benefits are expressed as percent of
salary.
Process
used to measure Performance Criterion 1.2: To calculate benefits as a
percent of payroll, we will compare SLAC to all the nationwide companies who
participated in the 2000 Annual Chamber of Commerce Survey. The data cover 1999
benefit costs. The benefits included are retirement, medical and dental,
vacation, sick, holidays, and other paid leave; life insurance; accidental death
and dismemberment; Workers' Compensation; social security; unemployment
compensation; and, short and long-term disability. The only unusual SLAC benefit
cost, which is not represented in this list, is the Tuition Grant Program for
the children of faculty and long-term staff.
This Chamber of Commerce
survey has changed its publication schedule from annual to bi-annual, so we will
compare SLAC’s 2000 benefits with the 1999 benefits surveyed.
Performance Objective #2: Human Resources
Policy Compliance. SLAC will comply with Stanford University Human
Resources Policies as stated in the most current Administrative Guide.
Performance Criterion 2.1:
Human Resources Policy Compliance. Periodic self-assessment of SLAC
Human Resources Department practices in Employment, Benefit, Compensation,
Employee Relations, Training and Development, and Performance Evaluation will
indicate complete compliance with University Human Resources policies.
Performance Measure 2.1:
SLAC Human Resources Department staff will assess two of the six areas every
year such that each area is reviewed every three years and will find complete
compliance with Stanford University policy requirements. The
self-assessment will be submitted to DOE for review and validation. During
FY01, Benefits and Employment will be reviewed.
Process used to measure Performance Criterion 2.1:
Employment: University Employment policy that governs SLAC employment
processes is found in Stanford University Guide Memo 22.1, Employment of Regular
Staff. In order to assess our compliance with this policy, we selected a
random sample of about 10% of our employment requisitions from the period
January 2000 through August 2001. This policy contains many provisions and,
rather than assess our compliance with every provision, we selected those that
are the most pertinent to the employment process: proper posting periods,
proper approval signatures on any exceptions to policy, attempts to provide
diversity in our applicant pools, and the exercise of appropriate review
procedures for those staff hired.
Performance Objective #3: Customer Needs.
The Human Resources Department will monitor employee customer feedback in order
to insure high quality service to its employees.
Performance Criterion 3.0: Requirements,
expectations, and preferences of customers are collected and addressed.
Performance
Measure 3.0: Based on survey data analysis, the Human Resources Department will
establish action plans to improve those areas, which do not meet customer
expectations.
Process used to
measure Performance Criterion 3.0: This
year we changed our methodology for assessing customer satisfaction with Human
Resource Department services. Using
a combination of e-mail and paper distribution, we randomly selected
approximately 450 employees to receive short questionnaires regarding their
experience with and feedback on the department. We had 70 total surveys returned (approximately16%).
The survey asked, “What works well?”, “What would you like to see
improved?”, and overall “How would you rate the performance of the SLAC
Human Resources Department?” on the following scale: (See Performance
Criterion 3. Customer Satisfaction)
1 = outstanding; 2
= good; 3 = acceptable; 4 = poor; 5 = unsatisfactory
Performance Criteria Results
Performance
Criterion 1.1: Direct Compensation.
Percentage Differences Between Benchmark Positions and Aggregate Survey
|
>-10% |
>-5%
<-9.9% |
+/-
5% |
>+5%
<+9.9% |
>+10% |
|
|
18 |
21 |
31 |
12 |
6 |
88 |
|
22 |
24 |
35 |
14 |
7 |
100 |
TABLE 1
The review included 88 benchmarks that matched jobs we
maintain at SLAC (See Table 1). The
aggregate simple average of those benchmark positions is 1.08% below the overall
market average, and within the mid-market range of +/- 5%.
Of the benchmark positions, 64 (73%) were within +/- 10% of their market
averages. 18 benchmark positions
(20%) were more than 10% below the market; 12 positions (14%) were more than 5%
above market, and an additional 6 positions (7%) were more than 10% above
market. On this measure, we have
27% (against a goal of 20%) of our positions outside the +or-10% goal.
This is an improvement over last year, when we had 33% of our positions
outside of the +/- 10% goal.
The data demonstrates that the University’s merit
increase programs slightly decreased the number of benchmark positions more than
10% below the market. While it is
true that some of these positions have a small number of incumbents, the overall
impact is that we are still somewhat lagging behind the market.
The University salary program has been competitive in our local market
the last two years, but our DOE budget has constrained our ability to use the
full program. The area of most concern remains Information Technology.
Performance Criterion 1.2: Indirect
Compensation:
Benefits as Percent of Payroll.
The 2000 edition of the Employee Benefits Study uses data covering
1999, the SLAC benefits data used for this report reflects 2000. Benefits as a percent of payroll were calculated by adding
the percent of gross payroll SLAC pays into University benefit pool and the
percent of gross payroll SLAC pays for paid leaves.
For 2000, this was 43.3% of payroll.
This is higher than the 36.8% average for all companies in the Chamber of
Commerce study, but falls within the 7.5% range of market average called for in
our performance criterion. This is
true even though our data is one year more recent than the Chamber data.
Performance Criterion 2.0: Policy Compliance.
2.1 Compliance
with Stanford University Personnel Policies:
As noted in the process overview section, two areas of
the Human Resources Department were assessed for compliance with Stanford
University policies: Benefits and
Employment. The results are
presented below.
2.2
Employment:
As a measure of conformance, random sampling and
observations were taken to verify that SLAC Employment Procedures are in
compliance with Stanford University Policy (see Guide memo 22.1 Employment of
Regular Staff in Appendix
B).
We reviewed thirty-two requisitions randomly selected
from those requisitions filled between January 2000 and August 2001 (See
Appendix C.). The review determined
that all thirty-two positions were posted for the requisite period required by
University Policy. Six of the
positions limited the eligible applicant pool to SLAC Employees/Stanford
University Employees/Current Contract Personnel.
Five of the positions were not posted due to Waivers.
In each instance of a waiver, the appropriate approval signatures
(Affirmative Action Office, Employment Services, and the Laboratory Director)
had been obtained. Each selection
for a waiver of posting recommendation had been reviewed and approved by
Employment Services and the Affirmative Action Office to validate that a
qualified candidate was selected for hire. Finally, out of a combined Applicant
Pool of 189 people, 59 Applicants (31% of the pool) were minorities and 41% of
the staff hired were minorities. All
Employment practices, search and selection policies and practices, posting
periods, waivers of posting policies, and hires were found to be in compliance
with University Policy.
2.3
Benefits:
As a measure of conformance to University policy, a
random sample of twenty employees’ benefit status and retirement plan status
were examined in the applicable computer data base to determine if:
The SLAC administration of the medical and dental plans are in compliance and:
That the SLAC administration of the two base
retirement plans and the voluntary tax-deferred annuity plan are in
compliance.
In the medical and dental benefits area, several
eligibility requirements were examined. First,
employees must work at least 50% time and for a specified length of time.
Secondly, they must complete their enrollment within 31 days of their
hire date. Lastly, they may only enroll their spouse, their eligible
children, or the employee’s same-sex domestic partner.
The results of this examination determined that:
All the participants in the sample were 100% FTE and thereby eligible for participation and were paying the appropriate rates for the level of coverage.
Eight employees elected coverage for themselves only.
Eleven employees with enrolled dependents were examined and all met the criteria for eligibility.
One employee waived medical coverage.
There were no new hires in the sample.
The results indicate that the Benefits Office is administering medical plans in complete conformance with University policy and procedures.
In the retirement plan administration:
Program eligibility was examined for each plan, and where applicable.
The tax-deferred contribution was examined for compliance with limits imposed by IRS code.
The results of this examination determined that all of
the participants met the one-year service requirement of the plan.
All the contribution rates by the individual employee and the University
were found to be in compliance with University policy and guidelines.
Performance Criteria 3.0: Customer Satisfaction.
Based
on the quantifiable component of our Customer Survey, the department rated 2.2
overall on the 1 – 5 scale. 70%
of the respondents rated the department as either outstanding or good.
6% rated it as unsatisfactory. (Most of the unsatisfactory ratings appear
to have been based on individuals who had one difficult transaction with the
department).
Based
on the written comments in the two qualitative sections of our survey, one can
make the following observations: the
Benefits area offers accurate, timely, and consistently high customer service.
The Housing Office continues to have extraordinarily satisfied customers even
though they have had to grapple with an extremely challenging housing market.
Historically, the International Services area has also had extremely
satisfied customers; they continue to have generally satisfied customers but
there has been some erosion of customer satisfaction due to staffing issues and
to a very inept U. S. Immigration and Naturalization department. (The
International Staffing issues have been addressed with the hiring of a new
person in that area and the INS appears to have corrected its problems).
Personnel Records consistently maintains accurate information on our
employees using the People Soft System and produces timely and accurate routine
and ad hoc reports as required. The
Labor Relations Area has well-established, effective working relationships with
The Union’s officers and representatives.
Compensation effectively handles numerous salary adjustments and advises
on new hire salaries and organizational changes along with the sheparding of the
annual salary program. Worker’s
Compensation is very effective in routing appropriate paperwork and tracking
employee injuries. Finally, the
Employee Relations area has improved substantially over the past two years; they
continue to do a marvelous job producing our employee events and special
programs.
Based
on the Customer Survey, the areas requiring the most attention are the
Employment Department and the Training and Development Area.
Employment needs to evaluate its processes with the goal of increasing
the timeliness of the overall employment process.
They also need to more actively source and recruit for open employment
requisitions. We have hired a
new Employment Manger, who has already made significant positive changes in the
department. The Training and Development Area has not offered the extensive menu
of programs that we have in the past and few of the programs it does offer have
been targeted toward SLAC supervisors. There
is general agreement that increased supervisory training and an increased number
of programs in general are needed. Finally,
while we have reduced our re-classification turn around time significantly over
the past two years, it remains a source of dissatisfaction to our customers.
2001 Customer Satisfaction Action Plans:
2002 Customer Satisfaction Action Plans:
Based on the input received from our customers during this
past survey, we have established the following goals for the next
self-assessment period;
We will continue to improve Employment Services’ response time over that portion of the process, which is directly controlled by Employment Services. This is the same measure we have used the last several years where it has come down from 5.1 days to 3.9 days. We will establish for this next period a target of 3 days.
We will continue also to work on our re-classification turnaround time. Last year we established an aggressive goal of 50 days average turnaround and missed it significantly. In order to be more realistic giving our staffing, this year we are establishing a goal of 60 days.
The Employee Relations and Training area will develop a supervisory program for newly appointed supervisors. We expect that each newly appointed supervisor will attend a series of 5 workshops designed to assist them in their adjustment to supervision at SLAC. In addition, we will offer at least 10 workshops/classes for current supervisors.
Summary:
Performance Criterion 1: Attraction and Retention of Qualified People.
While the data still indicates that the overall SLAC
salary is slightly below market and that 27% of our benchmark positions are more
than 10% below market, we have made progress from the previous year.
In addition, we expect further improvement in the SLAC position given the
local economy and our 2001 – 2002 salary program.
In our overall benefits program, we remain very
competitive with the national market, especially in our paid leave and
retirement programs.
Both the compensation and benefits measures together
indicate that SLAC is competitive with the local market.
Anecdotally, it is clear that we are having greater success in attracting
and retaining employees. Our
overall turnover rate has diminished from 12.3% a year ago to 9.8% during fiscal
year 2001.
Performance Criterion 2: Compliance
with University Policy.
The random sampling to test personnel policy compliance indicates that the Employment and Benefit service areas are administering their respective programs in complete compliance with Stanford University Policy.
Performance Criterion 3: Customer
Satisfaction.
The customer satisfaction feedback was, as usual, a mixture of favorable and some unfavorable feedback. Overall, we are satisfying a high majority of our customers. With the hiring of a new employment manager and the implementation of many new procedures in that service area, we anticipate that much of the unfavorable feedback regarding Employment (which was a large part of our unfavorable feedback) will be corrected.
For Questions or comments, Please contact Ziba Mahdavi, Last Updated 10/24/00